MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development and Validation of a Path Length Calculation for Carotid–Femoral Pulse Wave Velocity Measurement

2018· article· en· W2794217859 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Weir‐McCall, Liam Brown, Jennifer Summersgill, Piotr Talarczyk, Michael Bonnici-Mallia, Sook Cheng Chin, Faisel Khan, Allan D. Struthers, Frank Sullivan, Helen M. Colhoun, Angela C. Shore, Kunihiko Aizawa, Leif Groop, Jan Nilsson, John R. Cockcroft, Carmel M. McEniery, Ian B. Wilkinson, Yoav Ben‐Shlomo, J. Graeme Houston

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsPulse wave velocityMedicineBlood pressureInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingCardiologyBody mass indexNuclear medicineSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current distance measurement techniques for pulse wave velocity (PWV) calculation are susceptible to intercenter variability. The aim of this study was to derive and validate a formula for this distance measurement. Based on carotid femoral distance in 1183 whole-body magnetic resonance angiograms, a formula was derived for calculating distance. This was compared with distance measurements in 128 whole-body magnetic resonance angiograms from a second study. The effects of recalculation of PWV using the new formula on association with risk factors, disease discrimination, and prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events were examined within 1242 participants from the multicenter SUMMIT study (Surrogate Markers of Micro- and Macrovascular Hard End-Points for Innovative Diabetes Tools) and 825 participants from the Caerphilly Prospective Study. The distance formula yielded a mean error of 7.8 mm (limits of agreement =−41.1 to 56.7 mm; P <0.001) compared with the second whole-body magnetic resonance angiogram group. Compared with an external distance measurement, the distance formula did not change associations between PWV and age, blood pressure, or creatinine ( P <0.01) but did remove significant associations between PWV and body mass index (BMI). After accounting for differences in age, sex, and mean arterial pressure, intercenter differences in PWV persisted using the external distance measurement ( F =4.6; P =0.004), whereas there was a loss of between center difference using the distance formula ( F =1.4; P =0.24). PWV odds ratios for cardiovascular mortality remained the same using both the external distance measurement (1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–1.24; P =0.001) and the distance formula (1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.08–1.28; P <0.001). A population-derived automatic distance calculation for PWV obtained from routinely collected clinical information is accurate and removes intercenter measurement variability without impacting the diagnostic utility of carotid–femoral PWV.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertensionSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207